xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Volume too big

To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Volume too big
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 16:03:57 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <47926087.3020600@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801191650260.4780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4792223E.7080805@xxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801191808100.4780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <47926087.3020600@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>> On Jan 19 2008 10:15, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> 16:51 localhost:~ # strace -e mount mount /dev/md0 /mnt
>>>> mount("/dev/md0", "/mnt", "xfs", MS_MGC_VAL, NULL) = -1 E2BIG (Argument 
>>>> list too long)
>>>> mount: Argument list too long
>>>>
>>>> 16:51 localhost:~ # uname -a
>>>> Linux localhost 2.6.23.14-ccj63-regular #1 SMP 2007/10/26 14:17:15 UTC 
>>>> i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
>>>>
>>>> CONFIG_LBD=y. Do I need an extra flag for mkfs?
>>> Nope; this is probably that you can't do > 16T on a 32 bit box (core
>>> linux restriction, pretty much)
>>> get an x86_64, I think :)
>> Hm, JFS fails too.
>> But btrfs 0.11 can mount it.
> 
> It's possible that btrfs can cope with this somehow - but also quite
> possible that it's just missing the right checks :)

re: btrfs...

[15:50]  <mason> sandeen_: mkfs will work on >16TB, but the limiting
factor is the 32 bit radix tree ops on the page cache
[15:50]  <mason> so yes, it is missing a check ;)

:)

-Eric


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>